Nope, they entered into the agreement all with the same guy, Mr. Yang.
- You need a lecture on company law on this. Yang is not a party to the agreement. He signed his name but he signed the name only in his capacity as the legal representative of the entity called Proview Electronics only. An act made by this entity will neither be legally binding on Yang, nor binding on another entity called Shenzhen Proview, despite that Yang also serves as the legal representative there, unless Apple can prove the Shenzhen Proview authorized Proview Electronics to do so.
Examples of this can be found everywhere. British monarch is the head of state of many states. In the past sometimes two states wage wars against each other, despite that a single monarch represent both. Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, in which George VI, as head of state of both warring nations, was, in a legal sense, at war with himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
And that results in blocking iPad in China how exactly? As I mentioned before, who is the real trademark owner? Asset Protection Orders have been given to China Minsheng Bank and Apple itself in Shenzhen.
Before the actual transfer (to complete a transfer, you have to be granted with a trademark certificate with your own name on it ), the owner is still Proview Shenzhen. Even if there was a binding contract between Proview Shenzhen and Apple, before the transfer, Apple only has a contractual right to claim the trademark but is still not the owner. The actual contract, however, is very likely to be held not binding given that Proview Electronics may be deemed to lack the apparent authority to enter into a contract on behalf of Proview Shenzhen. Proview Shenzhen as the real owner, can thus request law enforcement authority to halt sales of infringement products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
Indeed, the evidence of the emails, the contracts and so on makes it pretty obvious Proview scammed Apple.
These may be real. But Apple has to prove it, otherwise they won't be admitted as evidence. If I am an random guy working for this company and have a corporate Email account. I can forge an Email signature and claim that I am the chief operating officer and execute contracts. If the other company sue my company, these contracts will not be binding, unless they can prove they actually examined an authorization letter from my company which led them believe I have the authority. Apple is unable to submit any evidence other than the emails themselves, which, according to the court ruling, bear a disclaimer that it cannot be used as formal contract. Not to mention Apple failed to obtain any formal written evidence with signature or company seal that Shenzhen Proview authorized anyone to act on its behalf
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
Let's assume Apple was negligent. This makes authorities in China block the sale of iPads at the request of a bankrupt company how? BTW, since Proview Shenzen is under the Proview parent etc all represented by Mr. Yang, it could be shown that Apple knew about the registration under Proview Shenzhen and executed a ~collective~ purchase for efficiency. Proview may have to prove that the parent-subsidiary relationship was both made clear by Proview and that Apple ignored and/or and seriously misunderstood that.
And this blocks iPad in China how? And why would Apple need to buy the same thing twice? If the creditors own the trademark, are they the ones trying to block the iPad?
If Apple can't prove the contract is binding on Proview Shenzhen. Proview Shenzhe remains as the owner and can sue Apple for infringement, and can block sales and exports of iPads...etc (the latter measure against infringement was the result of long term effort and lobby by western companies )
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
Don't the creditors have the burden of proof to show that Apple acted negligently and illegally, before iPad sales are blocked? Also, isn't the trademark subject to lapsing because of bankruptcy of a company that already sold the trademark, and in fact applied for the trademark to be sold to another company [Proview Shenzen to Yoke Tech] all under the same person, while the company and that person is bankrupt?
no, creditors do not bear any the burden of proof. Apple is the one who initiated the lawsuit to claim the iPad trademark, and Apple alone bears the burden of proof that it purchased the trademark from someone with the authority to do so, since all public information shows the owner is someone else
Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.
99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.
I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.
For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.
Too bad your friends are self haters. Taiwan remains to be Republic of China and HK remains to be a special administrative region China. They can hate it as they want but those facts remain unchanged.
[QUOTE=sunilraman;2051573]The disputed trademarks are for "iPad" in China.
I still don't understand
as an abstraction: if a USA company sued a Chinese company in U.S. for a set of Manderin glyphs in the US , how is this possible. The USA court would say " That's not English" and throw it out as frivoulous
How can a company trademark a foreign name? It is meaningless to me. Now if instead they translated the characters into English and trademarked that well that makes sense
so what then is the translation of iPad into Manderin?
Comments
It might seem that way in the developed world, but I think in Asia it's taken to a whole new level.
Nope, they entered into the agreement all with the same guy, Mr. Yang.
- You need a lecture on company law on this. Yang is not a party to the agreement. He signed his name but he signed the name only in his capacity as the legal representative of the entity called Proview Electronics only. An act made by this entity will neither be legally binding on Yang, nor binding on another entity called Shenzhen Proview, despite that Yang also serves as the legal representative there, unless Apple can prove the Shenzhen Proview authorized Proview Electronics to do so.
Examples of this can be found everywhere. British monarch is the head of state of many states. In the past sometimes two states wage wars against each other, despite that a single monarch represent both. Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, in which George VI, as head of state of both warring nations, was, in a legal sense, at war with himself.
And that results in blocking iPad in China how exactly? As I mentioned before, who is the real trademark owner? Asset Protection Orders have been given to China Minsheng Bank and Apple itself in Shenzhen.
Before the actual transfer (to complete a transfer, you have to be granted with a trademark certificate with your own name on it ), the owner is still Proview Shenzhen. Even if there was a binding contract between Proview Shenzhen and Apple, before the transfer, Apple only has a contractual right to claim the trademark but is still not the owner. The actual contract, however, is very likely to be held not binding given that Proview Electronics may be deemed to lack the apparent authority to enter into a contract on behalf of Proview Shenzhen. Proview Shenzhen as the real owner, can thus request law enforcement authority to halt sales of infringement products.
Indeed, the evidence of the emails, the contracts and so on makes it pretty obvious Proview scammed Apple.
These may be real. But Apple has to prove it, otherwise they won't be admitted as evidence. If I am an random guy working for this company and have a corporate Email account. I can forge an Email signature and claim that I am the chief operating officer and execute contracts. If the other company sue my company, these contracts will not be binding, unless they can prove they actually examined an authorization letter from my company which led them believe I have the authority. Apple is unable to submit any evidence other than the emails themselves, which, according to the court ruling, bear a disclaimer that it cannot be used as formal contract. Not to mention Apple failed to obtain any formal written evidence with signature or company seal that Shenzhen Proview authorized anyone to act on its behalf
Let's assume Apple was negligent. This makes authorities in China block the sale of iPads at the request of a bankrupt company how? BTW, since Proview Shenzen is under the Proview parent etc all represented by Mr. Yang, it could be shown that Apple knew about the registration under Proview Shenzhen and executed a ~collective~ purchase for efficiency. Proview may have to prove that the parent-subsidiary relationship was both made clear by Proview and that Apple ignored and/or and seriously misunderstood that.
And this blocks iPad in China how? And why would Apple need to buy the same thing twice? If the creditors own the trademark, are they the ones trying to block the iPad?
If Apple can't prove the contract is binding on Proview Shenzhen. Proview Shenzhe remains as the owner and can sue Apple for infringement, and can block sales and exports of iPads...etc (the latter measure against infringement was the result of long term effort and lobby by western companies )
Don't the creditors have the burden of proof to show that Apple acted negligently and illegally, before iPad sales are blocked? Also, isn't the trademark subject to lapsing because of bankruptcy of a company that already sold the trademark, and in fact applied for the trademark to be sold to another company [Proview Shenzen to Yoke Tech] all under the same person, while the company and that person is bankrupt?
no, creditors do not bear any the burden of proof. Apple is the one who initiated the lawsuit to claim the iPad trademark, and Apple alone bears the burden of proof that it purchased the trademark from someone with the authority to do so, since all public information shows the owner is someone else
Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.
99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.
I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.
For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.
Too bad your friends are self haters. Taiwan remains to be Republic of China and HK remains to be a special administrative region China. They can hate it as they want but those facts remain unchanged.
I still don't understand
as an abstraction: if a USA company sued a Chinese company in U.S. for a set of Manderin glyphs in the US , how is this possible. The USA court would say " That's not English" and throw it out as frivoulous
How can a company trademark a foreign name? It is meaningless to me. Now if instead they translated the characters into English and trademarked that well that makes sense
so what then is the translation of iPad into Manderin?